List configured provider integrations for the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | This is an opaque token — never decode it, edit it, or rebuild it. Pass it back exactly as it appeared in the previous response's cursor field, byte for byte. Omit this entirely when you don't have one from a prior response of this exact call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursor / descriptionPrevious value: -"Pagination cursor"New value: +"This is an opaque token — never decode it, edit it, or rebuild it. Pass it back exactly as it appeared in the previous response's cursor field, byte for byte. Omit this entirely when you don't have one from a prior response of this exact call."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description aligns with it without contradicting it. The description adds the workspace-scoped 'configured' context but does not disclose additional behavior such as response shape or pagination, though the cursor parameter partially implies pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence communicates the action, resource, and scope with no filler or repeated schema details. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional cursor parameter, the description plus the schema is almost sufficient. It could be more complete by explicitly noting the response contains a page of provider integration objects and a cursor, since there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the cursor parameter has a rich, operation-specific explanation about passing it back verbatim. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, so it meets the baseline for fully documented schema rather than exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clearly scoped resource ('configured provider integrations for the workspace'), making it easy to distinguish from singular get_provider and from a raw catalog API. The qualifier 'configured' tells the agent this is about active workspace integrations, not generic provider options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'configured provider integrations for the workspace' gives clear context for when this read-only list is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_provider or list_provider_catalog, so it falls short of fully explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.